| Citation: |
Ipsen, C., & Swicegood, G. (2015). Rural and urban differences in vocational rehabilitation case mix, delivery practices, and employment outcomes.
Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 29
(4),
349-370(22).
|
| Title: |
Rural and urban differences in vocational rehabilitation case mix, delivery practices, and employment outcomes |
| Authors: |
Ipsen, C., & Swicegood, G. |
| Year: |
2015 |
|
Journal/Publication:
|
Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education |
| Publisher: |
Springer Publishing Company |
| DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.29.4.349
|
| Full text: |
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/springer/rrpe/2015/0000002...
|
| Peer-reviewed? |
Yes
|
| NIDILRR-funded? |
Not reported
|
| Background: |
Findings indicate that urban, large rural, small rural, and isolated rural outcomes and case mixes are significantly different based on education, age, minority status, receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, and disability type. Geographic indicators allow for differences to be explored and considered when making programmatic changes within the VR system. |
|
Purpose:
|
To examine rural and urban differences in Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) case mix, delivery practices, and employment outcomes. |
|
Findings:
|
Findings indicate that urban, large rural, small rural, and isolated rural outcomes and case mixes are significantly different based on education, age, minority status, receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, and disability type (p ? .001). |
|
Conclusions:
|
Geographic indicators allow for differences to be explored and considered when making programmatic changes within the VR system. |
